The Bullpen

[Racbec]

It is very difficult these days to get a long-term bed in a mental health facility, public or private.  If Diana has had a bed all these years, that's an indication of how bad off she was.  Is she is now well enough to be able to go on these sorts of trips, she would likely to be on the verge of being discharged and getting treatment on an out-patient basis.  I wish they had never gone down the path of these new treatments.  

[JMO]

For me, Saje, the issue with how they handled Diana was that it was done completely off screen. Who she was contributed so strongly to who he became that it deserved far more respect and exploration than it got.

For all of the discontent with how some story lines (JJ) have been developed, in my book it's the missed opportunities that are the most disappointing. The recent seasons have been rife with them. Which has led to some wide open opportunities for fanfiction, but, truly, I'd rather have seen a faithful, well- written account on my television screen.

[secnarf]

Do we know approximately how old Diana is? For some reason, when people with schizophrenia get older (50s-60s usually), their symptoms tend to get better. So, it's not entirely unbelievable or unrealistic that after so many years of doing poorly and not responding to many treatments, she would eventually improve. She certainly wouldn't be fully cured, but it's entirely possible that she became more functional. Of course, that doesn't negate the fact that Reid is her legal "guardian" and would have had to approve any changes in medications/treatments and privileges (such as trips outside of the facility where she lives), or that this should have been explained at some point on the show itself if they were going to use it to justify Diana's improvements.

For all of the discontent with how some story lines (JJ) have been developed, in my book it's the missed opportunities that are the most disappointing. The recent seasons have been rife with them. Which has led to some wide open opportunities for fanfiction, but, truly, I'd rather have seen a faithful, well- written account on my television screen.

This completely. That was what frustrated me more than anything about The Forever People, actually. I had an incredibly strong urge to just shake some sense into many of the characters - that scene between JJ and Reid just about killed me, because it could have been a million times better than it was, and they really missed an opportunity for both of the characters. That's certainly not the only example, but it's the one that really stands out for me from this season.

[ForeverAlone]

For me, another missed opportunity this season was in "Burn." That episode was a grand opportunity for rich character development between Reid and Penelope. They could have had a deep conversation where Reid helped Penelope with any lingering feelings and talked to her about his own experiences. Instead Janine wasted that on an unrealistic story that was more externally focused on execution rather than internally focused.

[normasm]

Oh, god, don't even get me started (again) on Burn….

[SSAHotchner]

For me the most shocking part is when Messer state that they, the writers, consider themselves 'profilers'.

There's the mother of all evils: they are full of themselves to the point of no return.

That's why they cannot see (and won't see) how ridiculous their scripts are more often than not.

AMEN!

[SSAHotchner]

Yeah, but I personally think The Forever People was sloppily written. JJ displayed zero indication of being bothered by her experience, even in her expressions in season 9 when cases touched on her previous experiences. She was even joking about being tortured in the season 10 premiere. But all of a sudden, she just snaps (okay it was the anniversary), but what she was upset about was what happened four years prior and not what happened the previous year. Then while she was supposedly melting down, she was practically singlehandedly solving the case, while Reid couldn't concentrate on his work. Then Hotch noticed Reid's distraction, but not JJ's erratic behavior, and she was not taken to task for disobeying orders and being reckless. Then we had that hideous ending scene, where instead of Reid suggesting JJ seek some therapy, he leaves that personnel file for her to read. And we had to watch that scene where basically JJ had a conversation with herself/her torturer and we are supposed to believe that JJ simply saying "NO!" forcefully and then walking out with nothing further, like that is how someone is supposed to deal with PTSD. It was just so ridiculous and poorly written and was just the cherry on the crap sundae that was ninja JJ's story of being recruited to hunt bin Laden.

Hey, it's torture for me to relive this stupid episode. ;) Seriously, it just bugs the living daylights out of me that these writers think we're stupid enough to buy this kind of crap.

But that's exactly why 200 was such a travesty. Sure if you took it out of context with different named characters it would be a perfectly acceptable if run-of-the-mill and clicheed action show. In fact when I saw it it made me think of McGyver!!! If of course he was an uber skinny pregnant blonde! But 200 was supposed to be a celebratory episode of Criminal Minds and there was NOTHING of Criminal Minds in that episode thus making it an absolute travesty. Season 9 for me had nothing good that was memorable - all I can recall of it are bad things like the fitness test. the dream scene forcing the obnoxious Beth at us, the ridiculous Diana Reid in the Grand Canyon scene, the appalling retconning in The Black Queen and above all the omnipresence of JJ who seemed to be in charge of the unit and did everything. At least in Season 10 we have had at least 4 standout episodes and some pretty reasonable ones. IMO of course.

Yes! A thousand times, yes!

[zannej]

Someone mentioned pork! Now I'm hungry. I'm too tired to contribute anything clever. The conversation has been good thus far.

[MCatry]

Do we know approximately how old Diana is? For some reason, when people with schizophrenia get older (50s-60s usually), their symptoms tend to get better. So, it's not entirely unbelievable or unrealistic that after so many years of doing poorly and not responding to many treatments, she would eventually improve. She certainly wouldn't be fully cured, but it's entirely possible that she became more functional. Of course, that doesn't negate the fact that Reid is her legal "guardian" and would have had to approve any changes in medications/treatments and privileges (such as trips outside of the facility where she lives), or that this should have been explained at some point on the show itself if they were going to use it to justify Diana's improvements.

It is canon info that she decided to get off medications when she got pregnant of Spencer Reid. Hence, she had developed schizophrenia before little Reid was even a project. Then the senior Reid dropped himself out of the picture because he wasn't able to make her take her meds. Of course, her schizophrenia went down the hill when William Reid decided that the best solution was to walk away. She was out, but not so out of herself because she asked him to take Spencer with him, but he refused. Hence, since Will's abandonment, Spencer was in charge, and Diana got worse. He wasn't able to commit her when he was younger, but as soon as he turned eighteen he just put her in Bennington. If they accepted her, it was because she was in no way capable to live alone, and if they kept her for those many years, it means she didn't improve, at all. Otherwise, she would have been released, despite the risk of her going out of medication again, since the trend is to release patients as soon as they seem more or less ok. In other words, if she is still commited, under guardianship, its because she cannot be trusted to live on her own.

So she's been schizophrenic for the last thirty-four years at the very least. She may be now on her fifties, or even sixties, but in the end, what matters is that her schizophrenia won't change for the better.

Edited April 27, 2015 by MCatry

[secnarf]

It's well documented (though the reasons why are unclear) that people with schizophrenia do improve as they get older, with significantly reduced need for hospitalization and increased independence. Since the onset of schizophrenia is typically teens/twenties, these are all people who have been quite ill for some time. Just because she was incapable of living on her own when she was committed, and in the decades since, that doesn't mean she couldn't improve later on. It's part of the course of schizophrenia that most patients will improve (to varying degrees) when they reach their 50s/60s.
Also, they wouldn't just chuck her out on the street at the first sign that she might be able to live independently. It's not an inpatient psych ward in a hospital, where they try to get you out ASAP because they need beds for acute crisis situations, it's a place where people are expected to live long-term.

It's entirely believable that she could improve at this stage in her life, but if the writers wanted to go this route, they would have had to explicitly say so - so then it comes back to poor execution of ideas, rather than total implausibility.

[Saje]

Reid said in Fisher King pt. 2 "My mother is a paranoid schizophrenic who would forget to eat if she wasn't properly medicated and supervised." He's always been aware of the severity of her illness. 

 

I've heard some conflicting things, so I was curious and looked a few things up. Here's a couple interesting tidbits from the Brain and Behavior Foundation's website: https://bbrfoundation.org/frequently-asked-questions-about-schizophrenia

 

"While schizophrenia is a chronic disorder, it can be treated with medication, psychological and social treatments, substantially improving the lives of people with the condition..." and "Relapse and remission cycles often occur; a person can get better, worse and better again repeatedly over time." as well as "Cognitive and behavioral therapy can then help “retrain” the brain once symptoms are reduced." (while taking anti-psychotic medication).

 

Who knows, maybe they'll revisit the whole situation next season and she will have relapsed into a worse state, even catatonia. That would be sad indeed for Spencer. Although maybe the reverse will come true and she'll continue to improve - I wish I had a crystal ball to know for sure!

[spinner33]

There are episodes that make you think, and there are episodes that make you think WTF?

 

I feel like the writers are insulting my intelligence as a viewer.  Either they are too stupid to write consistent realistic plots, or they think I'm too stupid to know the difference. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Do we know approximately how old Diana is?

 

FWIW, Jane Lynch is fifty-four, but I don't think Diana's age has ever been mentioned in canon. Spencer was twenty-four the first time we "met" her in The Fisher King, as per Gideon's remark to Hotch prior to that how incredible it was that he knew as much as he did at his age. We learned in Revelations that he had his mother committed against her will, which meant that he probably would have had to be at least eighteen for him to have any kind of power of attorney, particularly with William completely out of the picture. So I'd give a ballpark estimate that she's at least in her fifties by now.

 

Her schizophrenia, as MCatry says, existed before she got pregnant, because she tells Reid in The Instincts that she quit taking her medication for the duration of her pregnancy, that she spent every day in terror but that in the end it was worth it. I took that to mean she didn't want whatever her prescription was to potentially harm the unborn Spencer, as some psychiatric drugs have unpredictable side effects. So she was lucid enough to know that her brain candy could possibly hurt her unborn baby, but not lucid enough to not spend every day in terror without them.

 

This part was never said in canon, but there''s at least one fanfic that says he put her in Bennington because that was the best facility he could afford on his salary.  Knowing how Reid's mind operates, I imagine he weighed the pros and cons of several places, including ones not in Nevada, but eventually chose Bennington because that was where they'd take the best care of his mother. Private care facilities are different than state hospitals. My father had two strokes and now resides in a nursing home close to my sister. Insurance mostly foots the bill for it, and he pretty much has a bed until the end as he'll never be able to live independently again.

 

I don't know many statistics as to the symptoms of schizophrenia lessening with age. In Diana's case, it seems like a long stretch to say that she was well enough to not only be released from the hospital, but to go on a sight-seeing trip without supervision. If nothing else, I would think that the administrators at Bennington would have informed Spencer that his mom's condition was improving, as he's the one paying her bills and whatnot.

[Saje]

CobaltStargazer:

...In Diana's case, it seems like a long stretch to say that she was well enough to not only be released from the hospital, but to go on a sight-seeing trip without supervision... 

 

I agree with this. Except that she wasn't released from the hospital and she wasn't without supervision. She got special dispensation to go on a brief supervised jaunt.

[normasm]

Saje, that special dispensation would have had to come from her guardian, Spencer. The facility can't just decide she's good to go for a supervised jaunt to the ice cream parlor, much less an out of state jaunt to Wy-damn-oming.

Edited April 28, 2015 by normasm

[missmycat]

I agree with this. Except that she wasn't released from the hospital and she wasn't without supervision. She got special dispensation to go on a brief supervised jaunt.

True, but it was to the Grand Canyon of all places and riding a donkey no less.The whole thing was utterly ridiculous. Quite frankly I am surprised it wasn't written where Diana had been sky diving or something similar albeit under supervision of course.

[Saje]

Okay, but that's what Spencer said. Maybe he has an arrangement in case he can't be reached, then the doc has permissions. And did he not say that his mom didn't want them to tell him at first, that she wanted to surprise him?

I don't know, it just didn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me. There have been far more ludicrous things. 

[missmycat]

Okay, but that's what Spencer said. Maybe he has an arrangement in case he can't be reached, then the doc has permissions. And did he not say that his mom didn't want them to tell him at first, that she wanted to surprise him?

I don't know, it just didn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me. There have been far more ludicrous things. 

Now that I tend to agree with. In fact two such scenarios come to mind both involving JJ. One of course takes place in "200" and the other "The Forever People".

[Ganya]

I objected to the Grand Canyon scene for another big reason.  Many fans love the Diana/Reid episodes and Messer has been trying to placate us by saying that she waas trying to get Lynch, over and over.  Maybe she was just too embarrassed to say that Jane Lynch had grown into quite a big star since the early days of CM and just didn't want to do it again.    My take on the canyon scene is that Messer had to get rid of the pressure/expectation to have any more Diana/Reid stories so she made Diana healthier, more independent, not much for Reid to worry/emote about.  In getting rid of hope for Jane Lynch, she also got rid of a complex thread for Reid, his constant worry about her, his traumatic past with her....etc.  I am not saying she got rid of those stories in canon, but she got rid of any reason to revisit it.  The rest is all details to me, whether they got the facts right of wrong is not relevant to what Messer was really doing. 

[ForeverAlone]

I agree. I think that whole scene was put in as a copout and excuse for why the show can't or won't get Jane back. Though, honestly with this group of writers, I am leery of who could write compelling Reid/Diana. I love every one of their scenes together, and would hate to have those memories tainted with piss poor writing.

Edited April 28, 2015 by ForeverAlone

[zannej]

I admit that I'm somewhat bitter because they claimed they tried to get Jane but she wasn't available but awhile back she said that they hadn't even asked her back. Meanwhile, Erica pulled all sorts of strings and really worked hard to make sure that Bellamy Young could get some scenes in on CM. If she had actually cared about Reid and his story, she could have found a way to get Jane on the show again. But the bottom line is, I don't think she really wanted to. I don't mind if she said that she didn't think it would do anything for Reid's story since he's grown up and moved on now-- I could accept that-- but she strings fans along with hopes of Jane returning when I don't think she ever really had any serious intention of bringing her back.

 

Mind you, that is all my take on things.

[Danielg342]

Messer I don't think looks at Reid like he's a main character. JJ's her girl, and stories with Hotch and Rossi (and now Kate I guess) are pretty forced upon her by the network, who insist that Thomas Gibson, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Love Hewitt are the show's "stars".

 

Which I think is a shame, because Reid should have been CM's breakout character and- along with Morgan- have been on the show long enough that they should be stars in their own rights, but the writers seem to hold both back.

[Danielg342]

Yep, Daniel, since I've been moaning in various spots on this board about TPTB not dealing with reality, I agree if they want to show reality, they need to show kids/women exploited, raped and killed every week, because it happens proportionally to the weaker members of society that they are prey. Women, children, and elderly are the victims of not just serial crime, but everyday brutality (and even bestiality). But on a TV weekly program that is defined by showing what Gideon called the "depths of depravity," there comes a point where showing the reality becomes desensitizing to a large part of the viewership.

Show one child rape/murder really well and it chills, horrifies, makes your audience think, makes some people disturbed enough to act to prevent the real-life version. Show child rape/murder 3 out of 4 episodes, and people begin to become inured to the subject, it becomes "the rape of the week." This may be the rationale behind not depicting the real-life statistical demographic.

To your point about not showing it unless it's an adult, I really don't think it needs to be explicitly shown for 9 out of 10 of these cases to accomplish the show's goal, exploring how these crimes are solved through profiling.

Moved from “Mr. Scratch”.

A few things:

1) I've never bought the “de-sensitization” theory for a couple of reasons:

--I have not seen one study that conclusively proves a causative effect of depictions of violence in various forms of media towards acts of violence in real life. There have been plenty of instances where there's a correlation but I don't take too much stock in that. Someone who is predisposed to violence is likely going to enjoy media that is also violent- I highly doubt you'll find a lot of serial killers who were into the Care Bears.

--There are millions of people who consume violent media every day (myself included, to a degree) and we don't have millions of budding psychopaths. I know there have been a few cases where a killer was inspired by something he saw on TV, but in almost all of those cases, the killer had a mental condition that caused him to have violent tendencies in the first place. We've never seen a “perfectly normal” adult (for the lack of better terms) watch a TV show and become evil because of it- there's always “something else”.

---When it comes to CM, I know there have been two cases: one, when an 11-year-old killed his abusive father believing he'd get away with it like a kid on CM (I believe this draws upon “Mosley Lane”, where the kid confused the mother with the father), and a second where a man in Akron, Ohio raped a woman in a style very much like “Aftermath”. In the former, I'm hedging my bets the kid was already messed up by the abuse, and I have to ask how the parents let an 11-year-old kid watch CM in the first place. Don't know much about the latter except that he was drinking at the time, and, judging by his demeanour, he probably was messed up anyway.

--I can't speak for everyone else, but even after watching the worst in gore, I abhor seeing it in real life. I can't explain it fully, but I think it boils down to perception- when it's in fiction, I know it's not “real” so I can better “accept” it, but when it's “real”, that's just a line I can't cross. There's just something about knowing that it “actually happened” that gives it another level of repulsiveness that fiction can't bring.

2) I spoke in more general terms regarding what I think is acceptable for depictions of gore in the media, not just for CM. I would agree that most CM episodes don't need gore- descriptions of the crimes should do the trick.

[Russet29]

I take desensitization to mean something other than causation. We, as a society, have become desensitized to violence (generally speaking) because we see so much of it in the media. Meaning when I see something graphically violent I'm not shocked. Someone who watches a ton of horror movies will be less sensitive to the images shown in those movies than someone who watches one a year. It doesn't mean the people watching these horror films are gonna go off and kill a bunch of people. It just means they're accustomed to seeing these things so they are not easily shocked by it.

 

With regards to CM, if several episodes a season featured an unsub targeting and ultimately killing children, an episode like The Call would not have been as shocking as it was. I remember watching that episode and expecting the BAU to be the heroes once again and save the child at the last minute. It was nice to see it play out realistically. I don't know the statistics but it seems that the large majority of the time, when a child is abducted, they're found dead not long after. It was nice to see a realistic portrayal, particularly because it's been beaten into our brains that after 24 hours it's unlikely the child will be found alive.

[JMO]

Jumping in here. No one will ever be able to prove causality between media violence and aggressive behavior, because no human lives in a vacuum. But the associations, or correlations, are there.

The original studies are over two decades old by now, from a time when the depiction of violence in media (and the sheer number of forms of media in which it could be depicted) was far more scarce than it is now. It's actually become harder to study, because depictions of violence are so pervasive to nearly every aspect of life. But I don't think it's simply coincidence that aggression has become such a characteristic of our society.

We do know that exposure to violence, one of the characteristics of toxic stress, literally changes one's DNA. Literally. And not for the better---it's associated with a host of illnesses. So, while we may not be breeding a nation of psychopaths, we may well be breeding a nation where life expectancies are headed in the wrong direction (oh, wait, that's already happening).

What we don't know, yet, is whether exposure to media violence can do the same. Don't know that we'll ever be able to tease that out.

And, yes, I realize the irony of knowing that and still being a fan of a show about people who study serial killers. Maybe that's why the rest of my TV watching is 'heartwarming family fare'. Which i can only find in syndication.

[normasm]

I take desensitization to mean something other than causation. We, as a society, have become desensitized to violence (generally speaking) because we see so much of it in the media. Meaning when I see something graphically violent I'm not shocked. Someone who watches a ton of horror movies will be less sensitive to the images shown in those movies than someone who watches one a year. It doesn't mean the people watching these horror films are gonna go off and kill a bunch of people. It just means they're accustomed to seeing these things so they are not easily shocked by it.

 

With regards to CM, if several episodes a season featured an unsub targeting and ultimately killing children, an episode like The Call would not have been as shocking as it was. I remember watching that episode and expecting the BAU to be the heroes once again and save the child at the last minute. It was nice to see it play out realistically. I don't know the statistics but it seems that the large majority of the time, when a child is abducted, they're found dead not long after. It was nice to see a realistic portrayal, particularly because it's been beaten into our brains that after 24 hours it's unlikely the child will be found alive.

Thanks, Russet, that's what I was clumsily trying to say to Daniel's point. 

[Danielg342]

Russet29/normasm- My apologies. Usually I hear “desensitization” within the context of the wider debate of violence in the media.

To your end, I see your point about “The Call”. My vantage point is that I don't think it should have taken CM nine years to do something like that- maybe two or three years, at most. The way I see it, the question of “will they save the kid” loses its potency if it always happens- or “always happens except for that one time”.

I can't speak for others but I know for myself when one side gets used too much- e.g., saving the kid- I find myself wanting the opposite to happen just so we get some variety in the outcomes. It's pretty boring if the outcome is always the same.

When it comes to kids, I think I'd rather see them saved more often than not, but I believe the ratio of cases where the kids are “saved” or “not saved” should be something like 4:1 or 5:1, not 100:1 like it is now.

JustMyOpinion- Sounds very similar to a “chicken or the egg” argument- are we more aggressive because we see more violence on TV or is more violence on TV a byproduct of how aggressive we are as a society?

My view, having a history degree- we are no more violent than any other period in history, we just express it differently. We also don't have a monopoly on violent media- many of the ancient epics had their moments, as did Shakespeare and, well, believe it or not, the Bible does too. We can also point to any number of old plays and visual art that is pretty graphic too.

Then of course there's the Romans who made a spectacle out of blood and killing- arguably, Rome was worse than we are right now, since they were perfectly willing to throw real humans into the ring to be devoured by lions (and not just Christians).

Thus, I see aggression as something humanity has always had, since we're animals and all animals, intrinsically, are competitive. Humanity, though, is the only animal that understands the greater complications of violence, so we've always tried to “check” our expressions of violence and strike the right balance between feeding our interest in it and preventing depravity, with some balances working better than others.

Rather, I look at our time's tendency for dramas to make widespread use of violence and “black and grey morality” as a sign of our times. The days of “Happy Days”, “Family Matters” and other types of “idyllic” representations of American life came at times when the country was doing well, where people didn't worry about their jobs, there were opportunities galore, America didn't have too many enemies and the sky really was the limit with regards to the amount of wealth we could accumulate.

Now, with terrorism and a wonky economy, there's more uncertainty, and thus I think we're interested in more “dark” television than we used to. I also believe our society's penchant for mistrust in the government and a pervasive feeling that government agencies are “watching” us feeds a curiosity into agencies like the CIA and FBI, hence “Homeland” and “The Blacklist” and our dear show. In fact, I think our show bucks the trend a little, in that it's quite clear that the BAU are the “good” guys- more often than not these days, you'll be stuck with anti-heroes and villain protagonists where you won't know who to root for than you will be with “out and out” good and bad guys.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Jumping in here. No one will ever be able to prove causality between media violence and aggressive behavior, because no human lives in a vacuum. But the associations, or correlations, are there.

The original studies are over two decades old by now, from a time when the depiction of violence in media (and the sheer number of forms of media in which it could be depicted) was far more scarce than it is now. It's actually become harder to study, because depictions of violence are so pervasive to nearly every aspect of life. But I don't think it's simply coincidence that aggression has become such a characteristic of our society.

We do know that exposure to violence, one of the characteristics of toxic stress, literally changes one's DNA. Literally. And not for the better---it's associated with a host of illnesses. So, while we may not be breeding a nation of psychopaths, we may well be breeding a nation where life expectancies are headed in the wrong direction (oh, wait, that's already happening).

 

Back in the eighties, Tipper Gore and her ilk started a crusade against "obscenity" in the music industry, particularly as it related to heavy metal music. The PMRC is mostly the reason they have those parental advisory warnings on a lot of CDs now, and there was a series of hearings about it both during and after the advent of the warnings. Supposedly, increased rates of suicide and murder were directly caused by listening to too much of that kind of music, and to a point, they won because they got what they wanted.

 

I'm of two minds about it. I think that if you have the propensity to do violence to others, that's a latent tendency you possess regardless of what TV shows you watch or what music you listen to. If psychopathy was totally dependent on exposure to media, everyone who has ever seen the movies Kill Bill, The Wild Bunch, and even Saving Private Ryan would have gone on a killing spree by now. So I'm not at all convinced that its completely cause and effect. I mean, if you're going to go in that direction, maybe the news should be edited so as to not cover stories that might give unstable people the wrong ideas. Because media is media, and you can't have it both ways.

 

Can the latent tendency to hurt people become not quite so latent? Sure, probably. But never once on this show has it ever been the case that someone went on a spree because of something fictional. Their stressors were related to real life, or at least real life on the show, and even if it was something fairly arbitrary the leaning towards the potential for violence was always there. Rossi was the one who said that every UnSub is ill in one way or another, and I think that's true for most actual murderers as well.

[SSAHotchner]

I admit that I'm somewhat bitter because they claimed they tried to get Jane but she wasn't available but awhile back she said that they hadn't even asked her back. Meanwhile, Erica pulled all sorts of strings and really worked hard to make sure that Bellamy Young could get some scenes in on CM. If she had actually cared about Reid and his story, she could have found a way to get Jane on the show again. But the bottom line is, I don't think she really wanted to. I don't mind if she said that she didn't think it would do anything for Reid's story since he's grown up and moved on now-- I could accept that-- but she strings fans along with hopes of Jane returning when I don't think she ever really had any serious intention of bringing her back.

 

Mind you, that is all my take on things.

Oh, I agree. And Jane Lynch said she'd like to do it. Her being too busy on Glee doesn't make sense, either, because she made other appearances and even hosted that game show. Erica always assumes everyone will believe anything she says or writes. 

[Saje]

I've heard some people say that Jane thinks she's too big to go back and play Diana now. I don't want to believe that. She got her start in small, independent film and that coupled with her publicly stated fondness for Matthew, I'd like to believe that she would welcome the chance to revisit the character. I think it would be great! :)

[Saje]

This is really nice.

http://time.com/3625550/criminal-minds-kindness-cancer/

 

http://cmsetreport.tumblr.com/post/117701999800/10-years-in-the-making-special-thanks-to-manuel

[zannej]

Saje, even after Jane was on Glee at the height of popularity, she said on Twitter that she wanted to be on Criminal Minds again, but had not been asked to come back. 

 

I'll have to watch the video later. Stupid satellite internet.

[Bookish Jen]

This is really nice.

http://time.com/3625550/criminal-minds-kindness-cancer/

 

http://cmsetreport.tumblr.com/post/117701999800/10-years-in-the-making-special-thanks-to-manuel

I'm still smiling. Thanks so much for sharing.

[zannej]

Would be funny if they could somehow work out a way to actually have him be the real pilot. :P

[Bookish Jen]

Would be funny if they could somehow work out a way to actually have him be the real pilot. :P

The Reid of pilots perhaps?

[Bookish Jen]

You know how we are always complaining about CM making nearly every unsub a victim of a shitty childhood and an obvious loser. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see CM feature an unsub, who on paper, looks ideal-successful business owner, seemingly "good family man," self-described Christian who donates money to good causes. And sadly, I know of a man CM could base this character on; a rather well-known owner of a consulting business who leaves truly evil comments at my friend Lisa's articles. Here is a link, but don't claim I didn't warn you:

http://expressmilwaukee.com/article-25619-scott-walker-wrecked-wisconsin%25E2%2580%2599s-economy.html

[Danielg342]

Jen, you need to edit the code containing the link. I click on it and all I get is bounced back to the top of the page.

[Saje]

You know how we are always complaining about CM making nearly every unsub a victim of a shitty childhood and an obvious loser. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see CM feature an unsub, who on paper, looks ideal-successful business owner, seemingly "good family man," self-described Christian who donates money to good causes...

 

Like "Parasite" in season 4 I think, maybe 5. That guy. :(

[Droogie]

We don't have a Kate thread.

[Russet29]

Quick question. I've seen multiple people mention that Spencer will probably be godfather again to JJ's baby. My godparents are different from my sister's godparents who are different from my brother's godparents. Is that normal or do most siblings have the same godparents? I should mention that in my family "godparent" is more of an honorary title. If something had happened to my parents when we were kids we wouldn't have been separated. I was just wondering if my experience is typical because if it is then he won't be goddaddy again.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

We don't have a Kate thread.

 

Droogie, there should still be a Kate thread. It's called Kate Callahan: Love Is All Around.

[normasm]

It might be obsolete in 10 days...

[Droogie]

Droogie, there should still be a Kate thread. It's called Kate Callahan: Love Is All Around.

CoStar, you are right; thanks. I can't find my butt with both hands these days.

[secnarf]

Quick question. I've seen multiple people mention that Spencer will probably be godfather again to JJ's baby. My godparents are different from my sister's godparents who are different from my brother's godparents. Is that normal or do most siblings have the same godparents? I should mention that in my family "godparent" is more of an honorary title. If something had happened to my parents when we were kids we wouldn't have been separated. I was just wondering if my experience is typical because if it is then he won't be goddaddy again.

My family's experience fully mirrors this. Apparently it is also traditional for the eldest two kids to have godparents who are the maid of honour and best man in the wedding.

Of course, I haven't the slightest idea what would have happened to us if my parents were unable to care for us. They couldn't decide themselves, so they didn't even make a will. It took seven years of me nagging (starting from when I was 13) for them to finally get their acts together.

My family is also Catholic, so "godparent" is supposed to take on more of a religious meaning, rather than a custodial meaning. I'm not sure if that makes a difference either.

Why not make Hotch or Rossi the godfather? Or someone from JJ's or Will's families?

Edited May 1, 2015 by secnarf

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From the Statistics thread:

 

I'm glad the female cast has increased their screen time, more women on TV should always be given priority over upsetting a group of misogynists. It's certainly the best thing Messer has done for the show.

 

*eyebrow*

 

I hardly think its "misogyny" if you prefer a male character over a female one. I've covered this subject fairly extensively in a previous post, but yeah. I don't think it can be disputed that in the early seasons of the show, Reid was the smartest kid (almost literally) in the room, and that as time went on that became less the case, particularly once the Age Of JJ dawned. I'm troubled by the idea that its somehow progress to dumb a male character down, even if its to make a female one look smarter. Bad enough that when Seaver showed up they had to make Spencer look like a ninety-eight pound weakling as far as anything physical went in order for it to make it "acceptable" for her to skirt the requirements to be in the FBI. I actually didn't mind Seaver all that much, but I'd have minded her less if Reid didn't suddenly have to be "less than" so she could hang around.

 

Further, is it really sexist if one female character is vastly favored over another female character, or is it just bad writing? I will never not be annoyed that the show hired Jeanne Tripplehorn and then proceeded to barely utilize her, and even if that wasn't specifically for JJ's benefit, I also don't think it can be disputed what the end result was.

[Bookish Jen]

From the Statistics thread:

 

 

*eyebrow*

 

I hardly think its "misogyny" if you prefer a male character over a female one. I've covered this subject fairly extensively in a previous post, but yeah. I don't think it can be disputed that in the early seasons of the show, Reid was the smartest kid (almost literally) in the room, and that as time went on that became less the case, particularly once the Age Of JJ dawned. I'm troubled by the idea that its somehow progress to dumb a male character down, even if its to make a female one look smarter. Bad enough that when Seaver showed up they had to make Spencer look like a ninety-eight pound weakling as far as anything physical went in order for it to make it "acceptable" for her to skirt the requirements to be in the FBI. I actually didn't mind Seaver all that much, but I'd have minded her less if Reid didn't suddenly have to be "less than" so she could hang around.

 

Further, is it really sexist if one female character is vastly favored over another female character, or is it just bad writing? I will never not be annoyed that the show hired Jeanne Tripplehorn and then proceeded to barely utilize her, and even if that wasn't specifically for JJ's benefit, I also don't think it can be disputed what the end result was.

Great post, CoStar, one I will respond to in a moment, but first I want to cleanse the palate.

 

"Oh, this old thing?" Bookish Jen

 

I thought all of you would want to see my typical CM viewing outfit. Here it is:

[normasm]

CoStar, great post.

 

Bookish Jen, ahem…. dahling…!

[Bookish Jen]

CoStar, great post.

 

Bookish Jen, ahem…. dahling…!

You can't go wrong wearing a La Liz inspired caftan! And she was a fellow Pisces, so you just know she was hot shit!

[Bookish Jen]

From the Statistics thread:

 

 

*eyebrow*

 

I hardly think its "misogyny" if you prefer a male character over a female one. I've covered this subject fairly extensively in a previous post, but yeah. I don't think it can be disputed that in the early seasons of the show, Reid was the smartest kid (almost literally) in the room, and that as time went on that became less the case, particularly once the Age Of JJ dawned. I'm troubled by the idea that its somehow progress to dumb a male character down, even if its to make a female one look smarter. Bad enough that when Seaver showed up they had to make Spencer look like a ninety-eight pound weakling as far as anything physical went in order for it to make it "acceptable" for her to skirt the requirements to be in the FBI. I actually didn't mind Seaver all that much, but I'd have minded her less if Reid didn't suddenly have to be "less than" so she could hang around.

 

Further, is it really sexist if one female character is vastly favored over another female character, or is it just bad writing? I will never not be annoyed that the show hired Jeanne Tripplehorn and then proceeded to barely utilize her, and even if that wasn't specifically for JJ's benefit, I also don't think it can be disputed what the end result was.

So much word, doll face. I know I haven’t been here too long, but it’s no secret I am a self-proclaimed feminist. I must have become a feminist when I was only 5-years-old. Officer Friendly came to my kindergarten class and divided us into two lines-one line for boys, the other for girls. The boys got to go through the front of the cop car to see all the cool stuff, but the girls could only got to go through the back of the cop car (and this was not that long ago in the big scheme of things). This incident set off a bit of a spark in wee Bookish Jen. I couldn’t quite articulate why I was so pissed off, and at that time I had no name for feminist. I just knew it was so unfair, and me and my girl classmates were treated “less than” simply because we were girls, nothing more, nothing less. This was my “click” moment and I’ve deemed myself a feminist ever since.

That being said, being a feminist (well, to me) doesn’t just mean support anything female while throwing anything male under the bus. Just because something features women doesn't makes it feminist and something that features men is misogynist. For instance, I despise the political pundits “Chicks on the Right”-or as I like to all them “Two Rights Making It Wrong.” These two twits are so despicable they make Ann Coulter look like a cross between Rachel Maddow and Elizabeth Warren. Two Rights are deeply hateful middle-aged mean girls who have proved to be racist, homophobic, classist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist and elitist. They are lack empathy, common decency, a respect for knowledge, wisdom and kindness. Day after day, they bully and torment politicians, pundits, activists, and anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest via their radio show, newspaper column, website, and social media.

On the other hand, one of my absolute heroes, journalist Bill Moyers, is highly professional, infinitely curious, respectful, gentlemanly, wise, hard-working, humane, educated-a true mensch. Mr. Moyer’s personal qualities are the type of qualities I admire in both men and women, not just as a feminist, but as a human being. I look for this in fictional characters, too.

So after revealing what I admire in people it’s only too obvious why I like Dr. Reid so much. But that doesn’t mean the writers should make Reid (or any other character) without flaws. Just make them human. Once upon a time the CM writers did this with both the male and female characters, which made me a fan. Today, thanks to the current Powers That Be, both the male and female characters have been whittled down to nearly dimensionless caricatures. And I hate it.

And CoStar, so much word for you saying the male characters of CM being anything but sexist and misogynistic. These four men are my ideal male co-workers for the most part. I bet every single one of them would treat me with the utmost respect. Sure, Morgan might gently refer to me as “Ginger Snap,” but he would do that not because he’s a chauvinistic pig, but because he likes my red hair and thinks it’s really cool I love to bake.

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bookish Jen

[normasm]

So much word, doll face. I know I haven’t been here too long, but it’s no secret I am a self-proclaimed feminist. I must have become a feminist when I was only 5-years-old. Officer Friendly came to my kindergarten class and divided us into two lines-one line for boys, the other for girls. The boys got to go through the front of the cop car to see all the cool stuff, but the girls could only got to go through the back of the cop car (and this was not that long ago in the big scheme of things). This incident set off a bit of a spark in wee Bookish Jen. I couldn’t quite articulate why I was so pissed off, and at that time I had no name for feminist. I just knew it was so unfair, and me and my girl classmates were treated “less than” simply because we were girls, nothing more, nothing less. This was my “click” moment and I’ve deemed myself a feminist ever since.

That being said, being a feminist (well, to me) doesn’t just mean support anything female while throwing anything male under the bus. Just because something features women doesn't makes it feminist and something that features men is misogynist. For instance, I despise the political pundits “Chicks on the Right”-or as I like to all them “Two Rights Making It Wrong.” These two twits are so despicable they make Ann Coulter look like a cross between Rachel Maddow and Elizabeth Warren. Two Rights are deeply hateful middle-aged mean girls who have proved to be racist, homophobic, classist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist and elitist. They are lack empathy, common decency, a respect for knowledge, wisdom and kindness. Day after day, they bully and torment politicians, pundits, activists, and anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest via their radio show, newspaper column, website, and social media.

On the other hand, one of my absolute heroes, journalist Bill Moyers, is highly professional, infinitely curious, respectful, gentlemanly, wise, hard-working, humane, educated-a true mensch. Mr. Moyer’s personal qualities are the type of qualities I admire in both men and women, not just as a feminist, but as a human being. I look for this in fictional characters, too.

So after revealing what I admire in people it’s only too obvious why I like Dr. Reid so much. But that doesn’t mean the writers should make Reid (or any other character) without flaws. Just make them human. Once upon a time the CM writers did this with both the male and female characters, which made me a fan. Today, thanks to the current Powers That Be, both the male and female characters have been whittled down to nearly dimensionless caricatures. And I hate it.

And CoStar, so much word for you saying the male characters of CM being anything but sexist and misogynistic. These four men are my ideal male co-workers for the most part. I bet every single one of them would treat me with the utmost respect. Sure, Morgan might gently refer to me as “Ginger Snap,” but he would do that not because he’s a chauvinistic pig, but because he likes my red hair and thinks it’s really cool I love to bake.

 

"Word" yourself.